150 words each, at least. Email your answers to me by due date on the syllabus.
Study Guide Question
- note: several question this week will rely primarily on information covered in class.
- What are political parties, and what is their essential purpose?
- Why do we have a two party system? What are its essential features? Be able to answer basic questions about the history of the two party system.
- Why are third parties uncompetitive in American elections?
- What impact can third party candidates have on elections?
- What factions tend to ally with the Democratic and Republican Parties?
- How many people in the US identify with each party? How many identify as independents?
- What did Washington have to say abotu political parties?
- What original political disputes led to the formation of the first parties?
- What impact did the Alien and Sedition Acts have on American politics?
While elections are written into the Constitution, political parties are not. Their usefulness in organizing and competing in elections, as well as organizing Congress, helps explain their development and longevity. We will become familar with the problematic origins of political parties in the United States, and the history of the two dominant parties in existence since 1856.
What is a Political Party?
A political party is a group of individuals that have organized around shared political principles with the intent of winning elections to governmental office and organizing governing institutions once in power.
There are two dominant parties in the United States, the Democrats and Republicans. There are also a variety of smaller parties that are generally uncompetitive and sometimes exist in name only (scroll down this page for a great list of parties in the U.S.). Two parties, the Libertarian and Green Parties, do have committed supporters and can occasionally win local elections, but the winner take all system tends to work against them being truly competitive in the American political system.
Parties were controversial in the early years of the United States for both good and bad reasons. Parties were argued by some to merely increase the divisiveness in American politics and encourage people to think of the interest of the party over that of the country. But organized parties also troubled the ruling classes in early America because they mobilized the lower classes. Political parties have always been one of the more effective mobilizers of the vote, and also can be a driving force on expanding the vote.
In addition to organizing the electorate, parties are also effective in coordinating activities between the separated branches. Some argue that without political parties the system of checks and balances would make it impossible for anything to get done. It would also make it impossible for the general population to be able to have any impact on governance because it would be difficult for their votes to have a coordinated impact on government. A large, cohesive and coordinated party would be able to present a solid platform to the voters and if elected implement it effectively. This would place the voters in a position where they could hold the party accountable for the success or failure of their proposals, which of the heart of democracy.
Proponents of political parties argue that without parties, democracy falls apart.
Parties, Coalitions, and Factions.
In order to understand the nature of political parties in the United States it is essential to remember how they are conditioned by the winner take all election system. In systems of proportional representation (parlimanetary systems generally) it is easy for a strong organized minority interest to form a competitive political party. Since seats in legislatures are apportioned according to the percentage of the vote received in an election, smaller parties can actually become part of the governing system. Depending on the balance of power, these smaller parties can wield great influence on policy.
In America's winner take all system, as we know from the previous section, smaller parties cannot win elections because only the top vote getter can get elected. This creates an incentive for voters to compromise. Instead of voting for their top choice, if that choice is a minor party, they will be forced to vote for the major party candidate that most closely reflects their interests. That is, if they feel that they can do so. Some voters do not compromise, and this can impact the relative competitiveness of the two major parties. Most do compromise however and over the course of American history this behavior has led to the development of two major parties that encompass a variety of generally complimentary, but sometimes contradictory interests. The two competitive parties can therefore be thought of as coalitions of likeminded factions. The strength of a party often comes down to the size of its coalition and its ability to maintain that coalition over time. When a party loses strength, it is often the result of its losing the support of a faction that may have decided to detach itself from the major parties -- to become independent -- or to switch allegiance to the other party.
Partisan competition does not only occur between the major parties, but within them as well. This can make politics confusing, because sometimes the actual behavior of parties can make it difficult to pin point precisely where a party stands on a given issue. Parties do have an organizational structure that establishes which issues a party wants to prioritize and what position it wants to take on them, but this structure operates on the national, state and county level. There can be conflicts between the three levels. Some counties -- such as Harris County -- are especially influential and produce strong candidates for office (both George Bush's for example) and redirect the positions that parties take on issues. Same thing for states. Every state has a Democratic and Republican apparatus. What is important for one state, may not be important to others or to the national party organization. Intra-party conflict often centers on who gets to influence the national party's agenda.
In addition, neither of the two major parties has control over private citizens who identify with them and get involved with the party on the club, county, state or national level. A strong, unified, passionate group can work within a party's structure to dominate, for example, the platform writing process during the party's precinct, county, state, and national conventions. These people can effectively force an issue onto the party that party officials may not want to be saddled with.
And over the past several decades, the primary system has allowed individual candidates to establish their own identities, while still retaining a nominal connection with the party. Since candidates can solicit funds on their own, or even fund their own races, party officials have little leverage over these candidates and cannot force them to adhere to positions they prefer. Money talks as they say. Often a presidential primary election becomes a contest between various factions within a party over which will be able to set the party's agenda for the general election.
Finally, party officials have to deal with the fact that some members of their party hold elective office and are involved in the daily business of policy making. They have their own opinions and goals and cannot be controlled by the party. This is espacially true of those who hold high office such as the Presidency, the Speakership, or are majority or minority leaders.
The two major parties then are internally complex. What seems like a repositioning on issues, is generally the consequence of a shift in power within the party, or the nature of the party's decentralized organization. All of this is a consequence of the requirement that only one position is up for grabs in a particular race. Still, some sense can be made of the arrangement since each party rests on certain basic, vague principles. For Republicans it is individualism, freedom, and tradition. For Democrats most everthing can be reduced to equality.
In order to come to terms with the current political landscape, here is a simple outline of the issue and supporter of each party.
On economic issues Democrats are more likely to see a role for government in regulating the economy and in providing certain pulic goods and services while Republicans tend to want these decisions to be made by the marketplace. For example, Democrats support regulations on business and a livable minimum wage. In foreign affairs, Democrats are more likely to seek diplomatic solutions and multilateral military involvement, while Republicans have a tendency to support unilateral military action over diplomatic efforts. An example here would be the decision to go to war in Iraq. And on social issues, Democrats tend to want to allow individuals to decide for themselves how to live their lives -- in terms of behavior -- without interference by government while Republicans are more willing generally to allow government to impose certain standards on people. Same sex marriage is a great example.
The groups which tend to (meaning that larger percentages vote for them, not a consensus) identify and vote for the Democrats are social liberals, multilateralists, union members, government workers, ethnic minorities, women, the young. Those that tend to identify and vote for Republicans social conservatives, unilateralists -- american exceptionalism, business owners, anglos, older voters.
A Few Words on British History
As with most everything else in American politics, the development of political parties in the U.S. has its origins in Britain, specifically the 17th Century conflict about the power of the Monarch versus the power of Parliament. Simply put, the Tories were those who supported the Stuart Monarchy, and strong executive rule in general, while the Whigs supported legislative power and limited governmental rule. The Whigs' opposition to monarchic rule made them very influential in the North American colonies.
The Right to Form Parties: Alien and Sedition Acts.
Washington famously counseled against the formation of political parties in his farewell address. His principle concern was that the attachments that people gave to the parties would provide people additional reasons to divide into groups and stoke hatred among them. The resulting chaos would bring down the republic and cause people choose a tyrant to impose peace. That's one way to read the speeech. The other way is to think of it as a warning against the formation of an opposition party. The country might be best ruled by a single party, the Federalists. Dissention perhaps was simply stoked by the increased strength of the Democrat - Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Acts were intended to minimize this posibility by making it illegal to criticize, or bring into contempt and ridicule, the government of the United States, or the occupants of its offices. It also made it easier to deport newly arrived immigrants who gave support to the party. It was passed during the Adams Administration and is largely thought of as a political tactic that backfired. Instead of weakenign the opposition it strengthened it. The legislation was not well received and proved to be effective ammunition against Adams who lost the 1800 election to Jefferson.
Early American Parties
While the North American Colonies enjoyed a degree of consensus in the mid 1770's as war with Britain was beginning, divisions in society still existed and would soon lead to the formation of organized factions. Recall that Madison listed a variety of factions in Federalist #10. Prior to the Second Continental Congress, disputes existed over whether to support revolution. These disputes placed the wealthier interests, the merchants and plantation owners, against revolution because Britain provided the economic and social stability necessary to do business. The British financial and military apparatus allowed the basis upon which commerce could occur. Small scale farmers and artisans did not see the need for these institutions. For them, stability was another way to keep them repressed, unable to control their own lives.
These division became less important following the Boston Tea Party and the events that followed it. After the war, the divisions reemerged. The Articles of Confederation was designed to effectively allow the small scale farmers and artisans to control state governments, and under the Articles that meant that they also controlled the country, since there was no national government to speak of. This meant that the interests of the merchants and plantation owners were not being met by the new government. The call for a convention to address the deficiences of the Articles could be seen as a partisan act since it was led by commercial interests and viewed suspiciously by others. This makes even more sense since the call's ringleader -- Alexander Hamilton -- was the man who would later develop the Federalist party, the party that stood for the interests of the wealthy commercial classes. He was also a fan of strong, practically monarchic, executive power. He also supported limits on state power and restrictions on the ability of the mass public to have a direct impact on policy. Both of which made him a bit of a Tory.
Hamilton's successful organizing effort to ratify the Constitution put him and his supporters in a position to win early elections to Congress as well as get Washington elected President. Once Congress convened the Federalists -- who were simply refered to as pro-administration at this point -- were able to pass laws which provided powers to the executive that were not written into the original Constitution. Hamilton had a special position of authority to push his prefered policies since he was Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. The most important of these were the economic powers granted to the executive following Hamilton's three reports to Congress. As a result, Congress assumed the war time debt of the states, paid full value to the holders of securities issued in war time, created a national bank, and embarked on a series of infrastructure improvements to facilitate commercial transactions. All of these required a loose interpretation of the Constitution -- based on what Hamilton called the implied powers of the document. Hamilton also urged that preference be given to Britain over France in diplomatic and commercial affairs.
Opposition to Hamilton's policies came from another member of Washington's cabinet, Thomas Jefferson Secretary of State. His disagreement with Hamilton was in essence philosophical. Jefferson believed that the American Republic should rest on a virtuous population and the best way to guarantee virtue was to ensure that the the population was composed of farmers, people who were fully self sufficient.
The Party Eras.
Political scientists who cover the history of political parties often break the history of parties into distinct periods where a particular relationship between the parties existed. Though there is controversy over where we are now, it is generally accepted that we have had at least six party eras, and that these were separated by a critical election, an election where some factor occured that disrupted the status quo, and led to a new arrangement. The following are the six distinct periods in American history:
First Party System:
- Dominated by Democrat - Republicans
Factons within parties
Federalists: Merchants, Plantation owners, New England, Elites, Congregational Church, supporters of England
Democrat - Republicans: small scale farmers, westerners, Supporters of France, immigrants
Dominant Issues: The Alien and Sedition Acts, The Virgina and Kentucky Resolutions, The power of the national government, the continuity of Hamilton's economic agenda, relations with Britain versus France, internal improvements, trade, western expansion
The period between 1789 and 1800 was the formative period of political parties. The groups which had mobilized for and against the ratification of the Constitution form into the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans parties under the influence of, respectively, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. By the time the 1800 election occured, parties had become part of the political landscape. The Federalist Party lost support following the War of 1812 due to its sympathies with Britain and its attempt to broker a separate peace with Britain which included a possible secession of New England. From 1816-1824, only the Democrat-Republican party ruled. This period was called the Era of Good Feelings. Factions within the party centered on the personalities of Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay led to the party being split in the election of 1828.
Second Party System:
- Dominated by Democrats
Factions within parties
Democrats: farners, agriculture, middle and lower classes, pro-slavery interests, westerners, immigrants,
National Republicans, Whigs: people afraid of "King Andrew," upper class elites, financial and commercial interests, could not come to a positon on slavery
Dominant Issues: The national bank, tarriffs, slavery, infrastructure development, western expansion, states rights
The elite era of politics ended with the removal of property rights requirements for voting. This expansion helped Andrew Jackson win the presidency in 1828. The election marked the end of the one party rule of the Democrat - Republicans who split in two. Jackson's faction became the Democratic Party -- which is still in existence, while a faction led by Henry Clay became the National Republican Party (later the Whigs and later the Republicans). While the Democrats found traction in a set of issues focused on the interests of agriculture and the west, the Whigs were far looser and less cohesive. They could never come to agreement on the slavery question, and other parties, like the Free Soil Party which opposed slavery, drew away potential members from them. Once the Republican Party was founded, the interests of commerce and abolition came together and won the presidency in 1860.
Third Party System:
- Even competition between the two parties
Factions within Parties
Democrats: agriculture, former confederates, southerners, westerners, immigrants, Catholics
Republicans: businessmen, shop owners, skilled craftsmen, clerks, professionals, labor, and commercially-oriented farmers, blacks, Protestants
Dominant Issues: slavery, states rights, the rights of freed slaves, reconstruction, immigration, prohibition, the gold standard, tarriffs, railroads, industrial growth, modernization
The Whigs, which had only been a unified force in opposition to Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, decrease in strength and create an opening for new parties based on new issues. The American Party, based on opposition to immigration ran competitively in some elections, and a growing temperance movement would eventually lead to the creation of the Prohibition Party. But neither issue caught fire like abolition, which became the driving force behind the creation of the Republican Party. In addition to abolition, the party adopted the pro-business positions developed by the Federalists and Whigs before them. After the Civil War, the Republican Party both solidified itself as the party of industry and earned the support of the newly freed, and soon to be enfranchised, black male. The late 19th Century witnessed the rise of corporations and what became known as the Gilded Age. These corporations earned profits often through monopolistic tactics that harmed small scale farmers. The resentments which built up in this class against the wealthy elites led to the creation of a populist movement, and a Populist Party, which pushed for fundamental changes in the nation's economic system. The most important change was bimetalism, which would make silver, in addition to gold, the basis of currency.
Fourth Party System:
- Dominated by the Republican Party
Dominant Issues: the need for a banking system, regulation of industry and trusts, the economy, the tariff, unions, child labor, the progressive agenda, racial segregation, women's suffrage, limits on immigration, isolationism,
After the civil war, competition was tight between the two major parties, reflecting an even split between the agrarian and industrial sectors, but this would change over the decades as the migration of people to the cities in search of jobs led to the growth of urban areas at the expanse of rural areas, and the increased political strength of the Republican Party since it represented the interests of industry. There was no great realignment which led to the growth of the party, just an increased number of people in each of the factions it represented. During this system, new issues emerged which altered the relationship between the parties.
Fifth Party System:
- Dominated by the Democratic Party
Factions within Parties
Democrats: Catholics, Jews, African Americans, labor unions, progressive intellectuals, agriculture, white southerners
Republicans: Protestants, business owners, isolationists
Dominant Issues: the Great Depression, racial segregation, threats from overseas
The election of 1932 brought with it one of the more dramatic shifts in power, if not the most dramatic shift in power, in American history. Herbert Hoover had won election in a landslide four years before, but the stock market crash and the general sense that th Hoover Administration cared about business interests and not the people, allowed Democrats to run successfully against him. Democrats had added to their coalition during the preceding years by appealing to the supporters of the Progressive Party. This meant that the party had to transform itself from a party focused on the rural agrarian sector to one that also focused on urban issues, especially the urban poor and workers. They began to support progressive policies like child labor laws, collective bargaining, regulation of industry, old age pensions and medical insurance and medical care. Many of these policies had no chance to pass under Republican rule, but the Great Depression created an opportunity for these policies to be passed. The Securities and Exchange Commission was established, as was Social Security, the National Labor Relations Board and a variety of other measures.
Dominant Issues: social liberalism, urban unrest, race, the size of the national government, the role of the military, the budget
The election of 1968 was the first in a series where voters responded to significant changes in society and law enacted during the Great Society, which expanded New Deal programs and reoriented them to focus on structural ongoing poverty rather than the temporary poverty that resulted due to the Great Depression several decades before. These policies included Medicare and Medicaid which expanded the size and cost of the national government. It also followed a series of Supreme Court decisions -- Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Conn, Engel v. Vitale, Miranda v. Arizona among them -- that mobilized a conservative movement that had been dormant for several years. The most dramatic policy shift was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which actually put teeth into civil rights policy by allowing people who claimed to have been discriminated against the right to sue discriminators in federal court. The last is most important because it led to a significant realignment between the parties. White Southerners, who had identified with the Democratic Party since its creation, began to shift their support to the Republican Party. First the shift only affected presidential elections -- most notably Reagan's elections in 1980 and 1984. The Reagan Coalition helped peel apart segments of the New Deal Coalition. Southerners continued to support Democratic members of Congress who had attained significant levels of seniority. But eventually, certainly by 1994, their total allegiance shifted to the Republican Party. But Republicans were unable to totally control the federal government, but rather has to share power with a Democratic Party that was still able to hold onto one of the branches of government. When Reagan was president, Democrats continued to control the House of Representatives. When Clinton was president, Republicans controlled Congress. In only 10 of the 40 years between 1968 and 2008 did one party control both elected branches.
Where Are We Now?
If you will notice, the last four party systems have lasted 36 years. Since these are artifically created systems, based on observations, they can be a bit arbitrary. But since 2004 marked 36 years since the election of 1968, many wondered whether that election would also mark the start of the seventh party system. Republicans had hoped that that would be the case and the election would mark the start of several decades of Republican rule. To so, factions that still identified with the Democratic Party would have to be peeled away, just as the party had done with white Southerners years before. The three that were targeted were Latinos, Catholics and Jews. All three groups tended to vote heavily Democratic, but were judged to be likely to be lured to the Republicans if given reason to do so. Certain policies were adopted to achieve that objective.
Since many Latinos are Catholic, these two groups could be treated together. Catholics tend to be both pro-life and against gay marriage. The push for gay marriage particularly -- in addition to the parties long standing positions against abortion, and the attempt to brand Democrats as "pro-gay" was taken to persuade Catholics to distance themselves from the Democratic Party. Traditonally Catholics had sided with Democrats because they approved the party's positions on eradicating poverty, gay rights and abortion were seen as opportunities to negate that tendency. Stances on the Elian Gonzalez and Terri Schiavo controversies were also taken with thsi goal in mind. Similarly, increasingly strong positions favoring Israel in Middle East policy was seen as a tactical way to earn the support of the Jewish population.
In 2004, these startegies seedm to be paying off. 43% of Latinos, 52% of Catholics, and 25% of Jews voted for Bush. All of these figures were unusually high. But following the election, the Republican base became focused on illegal immigration and began pushing to aggresively deport illegal alliens and build a fence across the border. Americans with Latino backgrounds felt this was aimed at them as well and began votign with the Democrats again. 31% voted for Obama in 2008. This impacted the Catholic vote as well, who were also concerned about the problems the economic crisis was having on the poor. 45% voted for Obama. The Jewish vote dropped off for Republicans as well, down to 21%. In addition to the financial meltdown, much of the drop off can also be blamed on the growing disenchantment with the war in Iraq.
In both the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democrats did especially well. In the former election they won back Congress after having lost it in 1994. In 2008, they added to the gains in 2006, in addition to winning the presidency. Dreams of a Republican realignment have not played out as planned.
Internet students I want you to write three 200 word answers to the following questions:
1 - Explain, and critically evaluate, why Washington was opposed to the development of political parties.
2 - Detail very briefly how the Democratic and Republican parties were established and how they evolved over time.
3 - Outline the similarities and difference in the 2008 platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Political Parties
Power Point Slides to be added soon
Quiz Questions for Online Students
Spring 2010 -- same as the summer questions you saw earlier.
1. Political parties were seen as negative influences on government early in American history. Why? Why did Washington, in particular, counsel against them?
- Washington’s Farewell Address
2. Detail the early development of political parties. What factors led to their establishment? What personalties and issues were associated with each?
- the Federalist Party.
- Alexander Hamilton..
- the Democrat Republicans.
- Thomas Jefferson.
3. Detail the establishment and evolution of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Map out whatever changes may have occured over their histories
- History of the Democratic Party
- History of the Republican Party
4. Fully outline the various groups which currently affiliate themselves with each of the two parties, as well as which groups seem to align with neither. What does this suggest lies in the near future for each party's competitiveness.
- Factions in the Democratic Party.
- Factions in the Republican Party.
150 words each, at least. Email your answers to me by due date on the syllabus.
Study Guide Question
- note: several question this week will rely primarily on information covered in class.
- What are political parties, and what is their essential purpose?
- Why do we have a two party system? What are its essential features? Be able to answer basic questions about the history of the two party system.
- Why are third parties uncompetitive in American elections?
- What impact can third party candidates have on elections?
- What factions tend to ally with the Democratic and Republican Parties?
- How many people in the US identify with each party? How many identify as independents?
- What did Washington have to say abotu political parties?
- What original political disputes led to the formation of the first parties?
- What impact did the Alien and Sedition Acts have on American politics?
While elections are written into the Constitution, political parties are not. Their usefulness in organizing and competing in elections, as well as organizing Congress, helps explain their development and longevity. We will become familar with the problematic origins of political parties in the United States, and the history of the two dominant parties in existence since 1856.
What is a Political Party?
A political party is a group of individuals that have organized around shared political principles with the intent of winning elections to governmental office and organizing governing institutions once in power.
There are two dominant parties in the United States, the Democrats and Republicans. There are also a variety of smaller parties that are generally uncompetitive and sometimes exist in name only (scroll down this page for a great list of parties in the U.S.). Two parties, the Libertarian and Green Parties, do have committed supporters and can occasionally win local elections, but the winner take all system tends to work against them being truly competitive in the American political system.
Parties were controversial in the early years of the United States for both good and bad reasons. Parties were argued by some to merely increase the divisiveness in American politics and encourage people to think of the interest of the party over that of the country. But organized parties also troubled the ruling classes in early America because they mobilized the lower classes. Political parties have always been one of the more effective mobilizers of the vote, and also can be a driving force on expanding the vote.
In addition to organizing the electorate, parties are also effective in coordinating activities between the separated branches. Some argue that without political parties the system of checks and balances would make it impossible for anything to get done. It would also make it impossible for the general population to be able to have any impact on governance because it would be difficult for their votes to have a coordinated impact on government. A large, cohesive and coordinated party would be able to present a solid platform to the voters and if elected implement it effectively. This would place the voters in a position where they could hold the party accountable for the success or failure of their proposals, which of the heart of democracy.
Proponents of political parties argue that without parties, democracy falls apart.
Parties, Coalitions, and Factions.
In order to understand the nature of political parties in the United States it is essential to remember how they are conditioned by the winner take all election system. In systems of proportional representation (parlimanetary systems generally) it is easy for a strong organized minority interest to form a competitive political party. Since seats in legislatures are apportioned according to the percentage of the vote received in an election, smaller parties can actually become part of the governing system. Depending on the balance of power, these smaller parties can wield great influence on policy.
In America's winner take all system, as we know from the previous section, smaller parties cannot win elections because only the top vote getter can get elected. This creates an incentive for voters to compromise. Instead of voting for their top choice, if that choice is a minor party, they will be forced to vote for the major party candidate that most closely reflects their interests. That is, if they feel that they can do so. Some voters do not compromise, and this can impact the relative competitiveness of the two major parties. Most do compromise however and over the course of American history this behavior has led to the development of two major parties that encompass a variety of generally complimentary, but sometimes contradictory interests. The two competitive parties can therefore be thought of as coalitions of likeminded factions. The strength of a party often comes down to the size of its coalition and its ability to maintain that coalition over time. When a party loses strength, it is often the result of its losing the support of a faction that may have decided to detach itself from the major parties -- to become independent -- or to switch allegiance to the other party.
See:
- Wikipedia: New Deal Coalition.
- Wikipedia: Reagan Coalition.
Partisan competition does not only occur between the major parties, but within them as well. This can make politics confusing, because sometimes the actual behavior of parties can make it difficult to pin point precisely where a party stands on a given issue. Parties do have an organizational structure that establishes which issues a party wants to prioritize and what position it wants to take on them, but this structure operates on the national, state and county level. There can be conflicts between the three levels. Some counties -- such as Harris County -- are especially influential and produce strong candidates for office (both George Bush's for example) and redirect the positions that parties take on issues. Same thing for states. Every state has a Democratic and Republican apparatus. What is important for one state, may not be important to others or to the national party organization. Intra-party conflict often centers on who gets to influence the national party's agenda.
In addition, neither of the two major parties has control over private citizens who identify with them and get involved with the party on the club, county, state or national level. A strong, unified, passionate group can work within a party's structure to dominate, for example, the platform writing process during the party's precinct, county, state, and national conventions. These people can effectively force an issue onto the party that party officials may not want to be saddled with.
And over the past several decades, the primary system has allowed individual candidates to establish their own identities, while still retaining a nominal connection with the party. Since candidates can solicit funds on their own, or even fund their own races, party officials have little leverage over these candidates and cannot force them to adhere to positions they prefer. Money talks as they say. Often a presidential primary election becomes a contest between various factions within a party over which will be able to set the party's agenda for the general election.
Finally, party officials have to deal with the fact that some members of their party hold elective office and are involved in the daily business of policy making. They have their own opinions and goals and cannot be controlled by the party. This is espacially true of those who hold high office such as the Presidency, the Speakership, or are majority or minority leaders.
The two major parties then are internally complex. What seems like a repositioning on issues, is generally the consequence of a shift in power within the party, or the nature of the party's decentralized organization. All of this is a consequence of the requirement that only one position is up for grabs in a particular race. Still, some sense can be made of the arrangement since each party rests on certain basic, vague principles. For Republicans it is individualism, freedom, and tradition. For Democrats most everthing can be reduced to equality.
In order to come to terms with the current political landscape, here is a simple outline of the issue and supporter of each party.
On economic issues Democrats are more likely to see a role for government in regulating the economy and in providing certain pulic goods and services while Republicans tend to want these decisions to be made by the marketplace. For example, Democrats support regulations on business and a livable minimum wage. In foreign affairs, Democrats are more likely to seek diplomatic solutions and multilateral military involvement, while Republicans have a tendency to support unilateral military action over diplomatic efforts. An example here would be the decision to go to war in Iraq. And on social issues, Democrats tend to want to allow individuals to decide for themselves how to live their lives -- in terms of behavior -- without interference by government while Republicans are more willing generally to allow government to impose certain standards on people. Same sex marriage is a great example.
The groups which tend to (meaning that larger percentages vote for them, not a consensus) identify and vote for the Democrats are social liberals, multilateralists, union members, government workers, ethnic minorities, women, the young. Those that tend to identify and vote for Republicans social conservatives, unilateralists -- american exceptionalism, business owners, anglos, older voters.
A Few Words on British History
As with most everything else in American politics, the development of political parties in the U.S. has its origins in Britain, specifically the 17th Century conflict about the power of the Monarch versus the power of Parliament. Simply put, the Tories were those who supported the Stuart Monarchy, and strong executive rule in general, while the Whigs supported legislative power and limited governmental rule. The Whigs' opposition to monarchic rule made them very influential in the North American colonies.
The Right to Form Parties: Alien and Sedition Acts.
Washington famously counseled against the formation of political parties in his farewell address. His principle concern was that the attachments that people gave to the parties would provide people additional reasons to divide into groups and stoke hatred among them. The resulting chaos would bring down the republic and cause people choose a tyrant to impose peace. That's one way to read the speeech. The other way is to think of it as a warning against the formation of an opposition party. The country might be best ruled by a single party, the Federalists. Dissention perhaps was simply stoked by the increased strength of the Democrat - Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Acts were intended to minimize this posibility by making it illegal to criticize, or bring into contempt and ridicule, the government of the United States, or the occupants of its offices. It also made it easier to deport newly arrived immigrants who gave support to the party. It was passed during the Adams Administration and is largely thought of as a political tactic that backfired. Instead of weakenign the opposition it strengthened it. The legislation was not well received and proved to be effective ammunition against Adams who lost the 1800 election to Jefferson.
Early American Parties
While the North American Colonies enjoyed a degree of consensus in the mid 1770's as war with Britain was beginning, divisions in society still existed and would soon lead to the formation of organized factions. Recall that Madison listed a variety of factions in Federalist #10. Prior to the Second Continental Congress, disputes existed over whether to support revolution. These disputes placed the wealthier interests, the merchants and plantation owners, against revolution because Britain provided the economic and social stability necessary to do business. The British financial and military apparatus allowed the basis upon which commerce could occur. Small scale farmers and artisans did not see the need for these institutions. For them, stability was another way to keep them repressed, unable to control their own lives.
These division became less important following the Boston Tea Party and the events that followed it. After the war, the divisions reemerged. The Articles of Confederation was designed to effectively allow the small scale farmers and artisans to control state governments, and under the Articles that meant that they also controlled the country, since there was no national government to speak of. This meant that the interests of the merchants and plantation owners were not being met by the new government. The call for a convention to address the deficiences of the Articles could be seen as a partisan act since it was led by commercial interests and viewed suspiciously by others. This makes even more sense since the call's ringleader -- Alexander Hamilton -- was the man who would later develop the Federalist party, the party that stood for the interests of the wealthy commercial classes. He was also a fan of strong, practically monarchic, executive power. He also supported limits on state power and restrictions on the ability of the mass public to have a direct impact on policy. Both of which made him a bit of a Tory.
Hamilton's successful organizing effort to ratify the Constitution put him and his supporters in a position to win early elections to Congress as well as get Washington elected President. Once Congress convened the Federalists -- who were simply refered to as pro-administration at this point -- were able to pass laws which provided powers to the executive that were not written into the original Constitution. Hamilton had a special position of authority to push his prefered policies since he was Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. The most important of these were the economic powers granted to the executive following Hamilton's three reports to Congress. As a result, Congress assumed the war time debt of the states, paid full value to the holders of securities issued in war time, created a national bank, and embarked on a series of infrastructure improvements to facilitate commercial transactions. All of these required a loose interpretation of the Constitution -- based on what Hamilton called the implied powers of the document. Hamilton also urged that preference be given to Britain over France in diplomatic and commercial affairs.
Opposition to Hamilton's policies came from another member of Washington's cabinet, Thomas Jefferson Secretary of State. His disagreement with Hamilton was in essence philosophical. Jefferson believed that the American Republic should rest on a virtuous population and the best way to guarantee virtue was to ensure that the the population was composed of farmers, people who were fully self sufficient.
The Party Eras.
Political scientists who cover the history of political parties often break the history of parties into distinct periods where a particular relationship between the parties existed. Though there is controversy over where we are now, it is generally accepted that we have had at least six party eras, and that these were separated by a critical election, an election where some factor occured that disrupted the status quo, and led to a new arrangement. The following are the six distinct periods in American history:
First Party System (from 1789 - 1828)
Second Party System(from 1828 - 1860)
Third Party System (from 1860 - 1896)
Fourth Party System (from 1896 - 1932)
Fifth Party System (from 1932 - 1968)
Sixth Party System (from 1968 - ?)
These are the critical elections which marked the transition from era to the next:
The Election of 1828.
The Election of 1860.
The Election of 1896.
The Election of 1932.
The Election of 1968.
A brief summary of each:
First Party System:
- Dominated by Democrat - Republicans
Factons within parties
Federalists: Merchants, Plantation owners, New England, Elites, Congregational Church, supporters of England
Democrat - Republicans: small scale farmers, westerners, Supporters of France, immigrants
Dominant Issues: The Alien and Sedition Acts, The Virgina and Kentucky Resolutions, The power of the national government, the continuity of Hamilton's economic agenda, relations with Britain versus France, internal improvements, trade, western expansion
The period between 1789 and 1800 was the formative period of political parties. The groups which had mobilized for and against the ratification of the Constitution form into the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans parties under the influence of, respectively, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. By the time the 1800 election occured, parties had become part of the political landscape. The Federalist Party lost support following the War of 1812 due to its sympathies with Britain and its attempt to broker a separate peace with Britain which included a possible secession of New England. From 1816-1824, only the Democrat-Republican party ruled. This period was called the Era of Good Feelings. Factions within the party centered on the personalities of Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay led to the party being split in the election of 1828.
Second Party System:
- Dominated by Democrats
Factions within parties
Democrats: farners, agriculture, middle and lower classes, pro-slavery interests, westerners, immigrants,
National Republicans, Whigs: people afraid of "King Andrew," upper class elites, financial and commercial interests, could not come to a positon on slavery
Dominant Issues: The national bank, tarriffs, slavery, infrastructure development, western expansion, states rights
The elite era of politics ended with the removal of property rights requirements for voting. This expansion helped Andrew Jackson win the presidency in 1828. The election marked the end of the one party rule of the Democrat - Republicans who split in two. Jackson's faction became the Democratic Party -- which is still in existence, while a faction led by Henry Clay became the National Republican Party (later the Whigs and later the Republicans). While the Democrats found traction in a set of issues focused on the interests of agriculture and the west, the Whigs were far looser and less cohesive. They could never come to agreement on the slavery question, and other parties, like the Free Soil Party which opposed slavery, drew away potential members from them. Once the Republican Party was founded, the interests of commerce and abolition came together and won the presidency in 1860.
Third Party System:
- Even competition between the two parties
Factions within Parties
Democrats: agriculture, former confederates, southerners, westerners, immigrants, Catholics
Republicans: businessmen, shop owners, skilled craftsmen, clerks, professionals, labor, and commercially-oriented farmers, blacks, Protestants
Dominant Issues: slavery, states rights, the rights of freed slaves, reconstruction, immigration, prohibition, the gold standard, tarriffs, railroads, industrial growth, modernization
The Whigs, which had only been a unified force in opposition to Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, decrease in strength and create an opening for new parties based on new issues. The American Party, based on opposition to immigration ran competitively in some elections, and a growing temperance movement would eventually lead to the creation of the Prohibition Party. But neither issue caught fire like abolition, which became the driving force behind the creation of the Republican Party. In addition to abolition, the party adopted the pro-business positions developed by the Federalists and Whigs before them. After the Civil War, the Republican Party both solidified itself as the party of industry and earned the support of the newly freed, and soon to be enfranchised, black male. The late 19th Century witnessed the rise of corporations and what became known as the Gilded Age. These corporations earned profits often through monopolistic tactics that harmed small scale farmers. The resentments which built up in this class against the wealthy elites led to the creation of a populist movement, and a Populist Party, which pushed for fundamental changes in the nation's economic system. The most important change was bimetalism, which would make silver, in addition to gold, the basis of currency.
Fourth Party System:
- Dominated by the Republican Party
Factions within Parties
Democrats: agriculture, southern whites, Protestants
Republicans: industry, labor, progressives, ethnic minorities, Catholics
Dominant Issues: the need for a banking system, regulation of industry and trusts, the economy, the tariff, unions, child labor, the progressive agenda, racial segregation, women's suffrage, limits on immigration, isolationism,
After the civil war, competition was tight between the two major parties, reflecting an even split between the agrarian and industrial sectors, but this would change over the decades as the migration of people to the cities in search of jobs led to the growth of urban areas at the expanse of rural areas, and the increased political strength of the Republican Party since it represented the interests of industry. There was no great realignment which led to the growth of the party, just an increased number of people in each of the factions it represented. During this system, new issues emerged which altered the relationship between the parties.
Fifth Party System:
- Dominated by the Democratic Party
Factions within Parties
Democrats: Catholics, Jews, African Americans, labor unions, progressive intellectuals, agriculture, white southerners
Republicans: Protestants, business owners, isolationists
Dominant Issues: the Great Depression, racial segregation, threats from overseas
The election of 1932 brought with it one of the more dramatic shifts in power, if not the most dramatic shift in power, in American history. Herbert Hoover had won election in a landslide four years before, but the stock market crash and the general sense that th Hoover Administration cared about business interests and not the people, allowed Democrats to run successfully against him. Democrats had added to their coalition during the preceding years by appealing to the supporters of the Progressive Party. This meant that the party had to transform itself from a party focused on the rural agrarian sector to one that also focused on urban issues, especially the urban poor and workers. They began to support progressive policies like child labor laws, collective bargaining, regulation of industry, old age pensions and medical insurance and medical care. Many of these policies had no chance to pass under Republican rule, but the Great Depression created an opportunity for these policies to be passed. The Securities and Exchange Commission was established, as was Social Security, the National Labor Relations Board and a variety of other measures.
Sixth Party System:
- Divinded Government
Factions within Parties
Democrats: Catholics, Jews, African Americans, Latinos, labor unions, progressive intellectuals, agriculture
Republicans: Protestants, industry, isolationists, white Southerners, evangelicals
Dominant Issues: social liberalism, urban unrest, race, the size of the national government, the role of the military, the budget
The election of 1968 was the first in a series where voters responded to significant changes in society and law enacted during the Great Society, which expanded New Deal programs and reoriented them to focus on structural ongoing poverty rather than the temporary poverty that resulted due to the Great Depression several decades before. These policies included Medicare and Medicaid which expanded the size and cost of the national government. It also followed a series of Supreme Court decisions -- Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Conn, Engel v. Vitale, Miranda v. Arizona among them -- that mobilized a conservative movement that had been dormant for several years. The most dramatic policy shift was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which actually put teeth into civil rights policy by allowing people who claimed to have been discriminated against the right to sue discriminators in federal court. The last is most important because it led to a significant realignment between the parties. White Southerners, who had identified with the Democratic Party since its creation, began to shift their support to the Republican Party. First the shift only affected presidential elections -- most notably Reagan's elections in 1980 and 1984. The Reagan Coalition helped peel apart segments of the New Deal Coalition. Southerners continued to support Democratic members of Congress who had attained significant levels of seniority. But eventually, certainly by 1994, their total allegiance shifted to the Republican Party. But Republicans were unable to totally control the federal government, but rather has to share power with a Democratic Party that was still able to hold onto one of the branches of government. When Reagan was president, Democrats continued to control the House of Representatives. When Clinton was president, Republicans controlled Congress. In only 10 of the 40 years between 1968 and 2008 did one party control both elected branches.
Where Are We Now?
If you will notice, the last four party systems have lasted 36 years. Since these are artifically created systems, based on observations, they can be a bit arbitrary. But since 2004 marked 36 years since the election of 1968, many wondered whether that election would also mark the start of the seventh party system. Republicans had hoped that that would be the case and the election would mark the start of several decades of Republican rule. To so, factions that still identified with the Democratic Party would have to be peeled away, just as the party had done with white Southerners years before. The three that were targeted were Latinos, Catholics and Jews. All three groups tended to vote heavily Democratic, but were judged to be likely to be lured to the Republicans if given reason to do so. Certain policies were adopted to achieve that objective.
Since many Latinos are Catholic, these two groups could be treated together. Catholics tend to be both pro-life and against gay marriage. The push for gay marriage particularly -- in addition to the parties long standing positions against abortion, and the attempt to brand Democrats as "pro-gay" was taken to persuade Catholics to distance themselves from the Democratic Party. Traditonally Catholics had sided with Democrats because they approved the party's positions on eradicating poverty, gay rights and abortion were seen as opportunities to negate that tendency. Stances on the Elian Gonzalez and Terri Schiavo controversies were also taken with thsi goal in mind. Similarly, increasingly strong positions favoring Israel in Middle East policy was seen as a tactical way to earn the support of the Jewish population.
In 2004, these startegies seedm to be paying off. 43% of Latinos, 52% of Catholics, and 25% of Jews voted for Bush. All of these figures were unusually high. But following the election, the Republican base became focused on illegal immigration and began pushing to aggresively deport illegal alliens and build a fence across the border. Americans with Latino backgrounds felt this was aimed at them as well and began votign with the Democrats again. 31% voted for Obama in 2008. This impacted the Catholic vote as well, who were also concerned about the problems the economic crisis was having on the poor. 45% voted for Obama. The Jewish vote dropped off for Republicans as well, down to 21%. In addition to the financial meltdown, much of the drop off can also be blamed on the growing disenchantment with the war in Iraq.
In both the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democrats did especially well. In the former election they won back Congress after having lost it in 1994. In 2008, they added to the gains in 2006, in addition to winning the presidency. Dreams of a Republican realignment have not played out as planned.
The Parties Today.
The Democratic Party
- Platform Issues
- Core Supporters
- Leadership
- 2008 Democratic Party Platform.
The Republican Party.
- Platform Issues
- Core Supporters
- Leadership
- 2008 Republican Party Platform
Party Organization.
- Permanent Party Organization
- Temporary Party Organization
- National Party
- State Parties
- County Parties
- Clubs
- Precinct Level Organizations
Parties In Texas.
Parties in the Greater Houston Area.
Terminology
Assignments
Internet students I want you to write three 200 word answers to the following questions:
1 - Explain, and critically evaluate, why Washington was opposed to the development of political parties.
2 - Detail very briefly how the Democratic and Republican parties were established and how they evolved over time.
3 - Outline the similarities and difference in the 2008 platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties.